BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

7 results for “capital gains”+ Section 16A(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi90Mumbai69Chennai25Bangalore21Surat21Kolkata20Pune17Hyderabad16Chandigarh9Ahmedabad7Rajkot7Jaipur6Nagpur5Cochin4Amritsar4Indore3Jodhpur3Lucknow2Varanasi2Raipur2Visakhapatnam1Cuttack1Patna1Ranchi1SC1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 2638Section 143(3)6Addition to Income5Deduction5Section 50C3Section 373Disallowance3Section 143(2)2Section 80H2Section 55A

KARANBHAI BHARATBHAI GANGDEV,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 139/RJT/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pravenn S. Verma, Sr.DR
Section 50C

16A of that Act. Karanbhai Bharatbhai Gangdev vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2008-09 Once the matter has been referred to the DVO, then the value of the impugned property has to be decided to determine the fair market value of the property as per the provisions of section 7 read with schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act 1957. The relevant

SHRI DILIPBHAI U.UDANI, RAJKOT,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

2
Section 16A2
TDS2
ITA 251/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed
ITAT Rajkot
02 Jun 2020
AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.N. Maurya, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 16ASection 23Section 24Section 263Section 34ASection 35Section 37Section 45Section 55A

gain. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. I.T.A No. 251/Rjt/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 3 Shri Dilipbhai J. Udani vs. ACIT-III 6. The learned AR before us submitted that the AO has no power to substitute the value shown by the assessee as on 1 April

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

capital and Reserve Fund of Rs. 195 crore. So, the proposed disallowance is not justifiable. 7. In view of the grounds mentioned as above your Appellant requests your Honour to appreciate the fact that re-opening of the assessment as above is completely erroneous and disregard with the Act, and order under section 263 is required to be quashed

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R
Section 37

capital expenditure, but it being a plain case of business loss, it would certainly be allowable to be deducted under the provisions of section 37 of the Act. 11. Learned counsel for the Revenue also half-heartedly submitted that this alternative plea of the applicability of section 28 and section 37 was not raised by the assessee before the authorities

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 947/RJT/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R
Section 37

capital expenditure, but it being a plain case of business loss, it would certainly be allowable to be deducted under the provisions of section 37 of the Act. 11. Learned counsel for the Revenue also half-heartedly submitted that this alternative plea of the applicability of section 28 and section 37 was not raised by the assessee before the authorities

SMT. GRACY KUTHUMKAL THOMAS,,VERAVAL vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JUNAGADH RANGE-1,, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 24/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 80H

capital in nature and not for the purpose of business, however, if it is correctly recorded in books of account, the books of account cannot be rejected on the ground of its non-allow ability under I.T. Act. The DEPB scheme was started somewhere in Assessment Year 1998-99. Therefore, it is possible that in early days of this scheme

THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JUNAGADH vs. SMT. GRACY KUTHUKMAL THOMAS,, VERAVAL

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 37/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 80H

capital in nature and not for the purpose of business, however, if it is correctly recorded in books of account, the books of account cannot be rejected on the ground of its non-allow ability under I.T. Act. The DEPB scheme was started somewhere in Assessment Year 1998-99. Therefore, it is possible that in early days of this scheme